Young America's dilemma: Shall I be wise and great, or rich and powerful? (poster from 1901) - Dalrymple, Louis, 1866-1905
If you make an argument that takes the shape of “it’s not X, it’s actually Y,” know that you are the problem. The form arises when two diametrically opposed positions are embraced by the ideologically compromised who robotically signal to whatever cult they believe they belong to. “It’s not a gun problem but a mental illness problem” is the most recent version of this coming off another elementary school shooting. Bro, it’s mentally ill people wielding guns. Both variables are obviously in play.
Twitter is a false dichotomy maximizer. It incentivizes extreme takes over measured takes because that’s what we generally rally behind. On top of that, humans are fucking worthless when it comes to identifying false dichotomies. I recently heard this tendency to fall for false dichotomies framed as “Christian” because it fits the Good and Evil dichotomy mold instead of the Zen concept of Good and Evil being one and the same. Perhaps the cultural infrastructure of Christianity is incompatible with the idea of providing solid foundations for thinking clearly across enemy lines. Similar to the idea that certain languages may be better or worse for doing philosophy, certain philosophies (Christianity included) are going to be better or worse for discovering truths, communicating with the other side, achieving progress, etc. The political infrastructure in place is subject to the dysfunction of the ideologies that run on top of it.
Conversation in any medium has always been about understanding my interlocutor’s personal language for me. What does someone really mean when they say X, and what are their goals by saying X? Usually, what someone means is something that is generally true, but it’s hard for people outside of their bubble to follow. The words mean different things or prioritize different values for those endorsing the diametrically opposed position. I really can’t even imagine approaching conversations in a different way. Like, don’t you want to know what the person making sounds at you is actually saying? LMAO
American culture is fully committed to an opposing philosophy of overfitting narratives as a strategy in order to place their thumb on the scale. Both sides of every political issue take cartoon stances to overshoot their targets with the hope of landing closer to their preferences. I’ve argued against this strategy so many times in the past few years. Playing dirty games incentivizes everyone to play the same dirty games back. And so we’ve created two positive feedback loops running in opposite directions from one another. How will your false language gain you more ground when all parties deploy the same faulty mechanism? Ah yes, of course, it won’t. Instead, you’ve diluted the substance of your language and the valid concerns that may have been embedded in it while losing any semblance of trustworthiness from those that are holding on to their sanity in a completely insane world.
I used to be astonished when I’d read an old work to find that someone had resolved a current issue plaguing our society hundreds of years ago. “Look! The problem has been deconstructed and well understood for all this time!” But now I understand how our inability to provide basic insights at the individual level at the scale of populations is the status quo. The facts of the matter are irrelevant because you can’t scale them to every human node. Everyone realizing there is some truth to both sides of every false dichotomy at once would resolve the conflict and pave the wave for productive conversation, but in reality, this does not matter because it’s a state that can not be achieved. Those capable of this will continue to make intellectual progress along the verticals they have influence over and the systems that are subject to those that can’t make this adjustment will continue to atrophy.